4 ms·

Any time someone actually does the math on sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, it seemingly becomes clear that it is simply not scalable to suck the carbon ou

Any time someone actually does the math on sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, it seemingly becomes clear that it is simply not scalable to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere. Have you done the math, and if so, why is everyone who comes to the aforementioned conclusion wrong?

wallace_f 7y ago
Don't do math, don't question the dogma, and don't bet against markets. Coastal florida prices are skyrocketing because underwater real estate is just gonna' be the new trend. And Holland is leading the world in supposed refugees of underwater refugees. I'm incapable of thinking for myself and believe everyhing I'm told. Let's go to war again in the Middle East! Better downvote this comment for offending your regurgitated ideologies.
- funklute 7y ago
  I have no idea what you are trying to say with this...
  - wallace_f 7y ago
    Don't worry, someone replied with an entire comment of simple ad hominen attacks and you can conveniently lean on those to make you feel more comfortable in your worldviews.
- pilsetnieks 7y ago
  Just so you know, I'm downvoting this comment instead for being an inane rant without presenting a rational argument.
  - wallace_f 7y ago
    Unfortunartely, becoming sloth is always easier than confronting reality unless you're forced not to.
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      I understand your frustration, but using such loaded language makes it seem like you're judging other people for doing what is in their own personal, rational interest. Doesn't it seem more effective to find ways to align people's self-interest (aka "sloth") with positive outcomes?
      - wallace_f 7y ago
        >Goebells was just doing what was in his personal interest, even if he actually personally disapproved of such loaded language. What you're saying is I should find ways to align my self-interest with his? Oh, but wait, but of course we are talking about "normal" people, and "normal" people would never become Nazis. Better downvote this for making you feel uncomfortable before you stopped and paused to really think about all of this here.
        slimed 7y ago
        Do you not realize that you sound absolutely unhinged? Or is that your schtick?
        wallace_f 7y ago
        When someone questions authority, consensus, it is pretty much obvious to anyone that they are taking on a task which exposes them to ridicule. People who are willing to take on this task -- which is no more but a simple expression of ideas -- have even gotten themselves killed. Ideas which can be expressed as I did in above comments with no more than a sarcastic statement of a couple of facts and yet even still be received as being so offensive and "unhinged" by peers -- are always ideas which clearly do not stand on their own. Otherwise, stating a couple of facts would not be so offensive to you that you responded aggressively and irrationally with ad hominen attacks. When groupthink and authority do this to people like you it is truly terrible but still just normal and part of human nature. The world is not nice to its Thomas Paines and Helmuth Hubeners, even though it would be a much worse place without them. Though I'd rather take any chance that I be in their company than the likes of people who throughout history tolerate abuse, evil, lies and wrongdoing. Or worse, ridicule those who question it.
nkohari 7y ago
There is an argument that it will become cheaper if more investment flows into the technology. For example, when solar power was originally conceived it wasn't cost-effective, but over the years it has seen tremendous gains in efficiency. That said, I'm not educated on the topic well enough to say whether this argument applies to carbon sequestration.
- funklute 7y ago
  Same, I also don't think I'm educated enough... but many people who are educated in this area do conclude that carbon removal is a non-starter, so I feel there is a certain burden of proof to claim that it will work. Solar power is a good example of a technology that did better than I would have thought, but there are many others that have silently fallen by the wayside.
bluejellybean 7y ago
I like the idea of getting to net neutral with carbon capture. I even did some napkin math about a month ago. I tried calculating the energy requirements to break the CO2 bond as to determine the number of solar panels you would need. To get net neutral with CO2 emissions you would need to spend something around $8.5 trillion and obtain around 84,584,490,753.28 of 300 watt, $100 panels! Note I did not calculate the cost of the actual carbon capture machines, just energy requirements. I think my number is perhaps still a bit low but I also think this is reasonably doable with global support.
- dTal 7y ago
  If you have enough green energy to unburn CO2, why not just... use that energy directly? Digging up carbon, burning it, and polluting it, only to spend the effort to capture it, unburn it, and rebury it would be absurd and inefficient. That being said, I believe carbon capture proposals don't typically involve unburning the carbon - just capturing it and storing it. So the energy situation isn't as bad as your calculations.
quotemstr 7y ago
These guys seem to have a viable approach to accelerated weathering, a form of carbon removal: https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/
- funklute 7y ago
  that's actually pretty cool
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  There's not enough limestone deposits for this to work - that aren't actually being currently mined. You cannot use a an active mine for this technique, you have to let the stone lie and weather.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    Read their FAQ [1]. They're using olivine, not limestone, and there's a ton of olivine in the crust. [1] https://projectvesta.org/frequently-asked-questions/ https://projectvesta.org/frequently-asked-questions/
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I skimmed their site and I'm yet to read the whitepaper, but I have one question that wasn't so far answered: what about transportation costs? Is this still net carbon negative when you account for the costs of moving all this rock and spreading it on the beaches?
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    They discuss that in their detailed proposals. There's a lot of discussion on siting and various transportation options. The math ends up working out.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Ok, thanks! I'll head on to reading the white paper then.
ddxxdd 7y ago
I have repeatedly heard scientists say that planting 1 trillion trees will singlehandedly set climate change back 10 years. I've done the math on that myself and found that such a plan is about 5000 times more cost-effective than driving Tesla vehicles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 Anytime anybody says anything about the social cost of carbon being greater than $0.50 per ton, I just tune them out.
- flavor8 7y ago
  On what timescale? I.e. trees take time to grow and accumulate carbon. As I understand it, the climate clock is ticking - there's a threshold beyond which some runaway effects kick in.
  - coryrc 7y ago
    Growing is the only time they collect carbon. We could plant enough trees to zero out carbon usage (for now).
  - notJim 7y ago
    > trees take time to grow and accumulate carbon They also burn down or are harvested quite regularly.
    - ukoki 7y ago
      Harvesting can be good because it provides space for more trees to grow and store yet more carbon. As long the timber is used for long-term purposes such as housing, then the carbon in the timber kept stored. It's not 100% efficient because when felled the roots and leaves rot and return carbon back to the atmosphere, but AFAIK it's better than not harvesting.

wallace_f 7y ago

Don't do math, don't question the dogma, and don't bet against markets. Coastal florida prices are skyrocketing because underwater real estate is just gonna' be the new trend. And Holland is leading the world in supposed refugees of underwater refugees. I'm incapable of thinking for myself and believe everyhing I'm told. Let's go to war again in the Middle East! Better downvote this comment for offending your regurgitated ideologies.

funklute 7y ago
I have no idea what you are trying to say with this...
- wallace_f 7y ago
  Don't worry, someone replied with an entire comment of simple ad hominen attacks and you can conveniently lean on those to make you feel more comfortable in your worldviews.
pilsetnieks 7y ago
Just so you know, I'm downvoting this comment instead for being an inane rant without presenting a rational argument.
- wallace_f 7y ago
  Unfortunartely, becoming sloth is always easier than confronting reality unless you're forced not to.
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    I understand your frustration, but using such loaded language makes it seem like you're judging other people for doing what is in their own personal, rational interest. Doesn't it seem more effective to find ways to align people's self-interest (aka "sloth") with positive outcomes?
    - wallace_f 7y ago
      >Goebells was just doing what was in his personal interest, even if he actually personally disapproved of such loaded language. What you're saying is I should find ways to align my self-interest with his? Oh, but wait, but of course we are talking about "normal" people, and "normal" people would never become Nazis. Better downvote this for making you feel uncomfortable before you stopped and paused to really think about all of this here.
      - slimed 7y ago
        Do you not realize that you sound absolutely unhinged? Or is that your schtick?
        wallace_f 7y ago
        When someone questions authority, consensus, it is pretty much obvious to anyone that they are taking on a task which exposes them to ridicule. People who are willing to take on this task -- which is no more but a simple expression of ideas -- have even gotten themselves killed. Ideas which can be expressed as I did in above comments with no more than a sarcastic statement of a couple of facts and yet even still be received as being so offensive and "unhinged" by peers -- are always ideas which clearly do not stand on their own. Otherwise, stating a couple of facts would not be so offensive to you that you responded aggressively and irrationally with ad hominen attacks. When groupthink and authority do this to people like you it is truly terrible but still just normal and part of human nature. The world is not nice to its Thomas Paines and Helmuth Hubeners, even though it would be a much worse place without them. Though I'd rather take any chance that I be in their company than the likes of people who throughout history tolerate abuse, evil, lies and wrongdoing. Or worse, ridicule those who question it.

nkohari 7y ago

There is an argument that it will become cheaper if more investment flows into the technology. For example, when solar power was originally conceived it wasn't cost-effective, but over the years it has seen tremendous gains in efficiency. That said, I'm not educated on the topic well enough to say whether this argument applies to carbon sequestration.

funklute 7y ago
Same, I also don't think I'm educated enough... but many people who are educated in this area do conclude that carbon removal is a non-starter, so I feel there is a certain burden of proof to claim that it will work. Solar power is a good example of a technology that did better than I would have thought, but there are many others that have silently fallen by the wayside.

bluejellybean 7y ago

I like the idea of getting to net neutral with carbon capture. I even did some napkin math about a month ago. I tried calculating the energy requirements to break the CO2 bond as to determine the number of solar panels you would need. To get net neutral with CO2 emissions you would need to spend something around $8.5 trillion and obtain around 84,584,490,753.28 of 300 watt, $100 panels! Note I did not calculate the cost of the actual carbon capture machines, just energy requirements. I think my number is perhaps still a bit low but I also think this is reasonably doable with global support.

dTal 7y ago
If you have enough green energy to unburn CO2, why not just... use that energy directly? Digging up carbon, burning it, and polluting it, only to spend the effort to capture it, unburn it, and rebury it would be absurd and inefficient. That being said, I believe carbon capture proposals don't typically involve unburning the carbon - just capturing it and storing it. So the energy situation isn't as bad as your calculations.

quotemstr 7y ago

These guys seem to have a viable approach to accelerated weathering, a form of carbon removal: https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/

funklute 7y ago
that's actually pretty cool
AstralStorm 7y ago
There's not enough limestone deposits for this to work - that aren't actually being currently mined. You cannot use a an active mine for this technique, you have to let the stone lie and weather.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  Read their FAQ [1]. They're using olivine, not limestone, and there's a ton of olivine in the crust. [1] https://projectvesta.org/frequently-asked-questions/ https://projectvesta.org/frequently-asked-questions/
TeMPOraL 7y ago
I skimmed their site and I'm yet to read the whitepaper, but I have one question that wasn't so far answered: what about transportation costs? Is this still net carbon negative when you account for the costs of moving all this rock and spreading it on the beaches?
- quotemstr 7y ago
  They discuss that in their detailed proposals. There's a lot of discussion on siting and various transportation options. The math ends up working out.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Ok, thanks! I'll head on to reading the white paper then.

ddxxdd 7y ago

I have repeatedly heard scientists say that planting 1 trillion trees will singlehandedly set climate change back 10 years. I've done the math on that myself and found that such a plan is about 5000 times more cost-effective than driving Tesla vehicles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 Anytime anybody says anything about the social cost of carbon being greater than $0.50 per ton, I just tune them out.

flavor8 7y ago
On what timescale? I.e. trees take time to grow and accumulate carbon. As I understand it, the climate clock is ticking - there's a threshold beyond which some runaway effects kick in.
- coryrc 7y ago
  Growing is the only time they collect carbon. We could plant enough trees to zero out carbon usage (for now).
- notJim 7y ago
  > trees take time to grow and accumulate carbon They also burn down or are harvested quite regularly.
  - ukoki 7y ago
    Harvesting can be good because it provides space for more trees to grow and store yet more carbon. As long the timber is used for long-term purposes such as housing, then the carbon in the timber kept stored. It's not 100% efficient because when felled the roots and leaves rot and return carbon back to the atmosphere, but AFAIK it's better than not harvesting.